Posted on 07/30/2010 7:01:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Judge Susan Bolton has to get credit for her cheekiness. She took a matter of profound national concern and injected an element of hilarity into it.
As gloriously ridiculous as a classic Monty Python skit, the federal judge’s decision blocking Arizona’s immigration law is an appropriate first volley in the legal war over the law. If our immigration system is to be defined by a judicially sanctioned lawlessness, we might as well dispense with the pretense.
Acting in keeping with federal law, court precedent, and a Department of Justice legal memorandum (not to mention common sense), Arizona said its law-enforcement officers would henceforth check the legal status of suspected illegal immigrants during the course of a lawful stop or arrest. To conclude that the law likely will be struck down for “preempting” federal regulations, Judge Bolton had to engage in complicated judicial gymnastics, which she nailed with all the skill of a Mary Lou Retton in robes.
Taking her cues from the Obama administration’s suit against the law, Judge Bolton worried that too many legal aliens would be caught up in Arizona’s dragnet. Of course, these aliens are already required by federal law to carry proof of their legal status. But let’s put that aside (as Judge Bolton does). She claims that too many legal aliens without ready access to documents proving their lawful entry into the U.S. will be put at risk, including visitors from visa-waiver countries.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that visitors from countries like Norway and Australia are flooding into the border areas of Arizona. And let’s assume they engage in recklessly illegal conduct, daring cops to stop and arrest them. And let’s assume they exhibit all the behaviors associated with illegal immigrants. How could such a visitor escape the dreaded fate awaiting him when an officer asks about his legal status? Perhaps by producing a passport stamped with the duration of his stay, possessed by every visitor from a visa-waiver country?
Judge Bolton piles speculation atop implausible readings of the law. Say a legal alien is arrested and his release is delayed by a check on his status. Let’s put aside (as Judge Bolton does) that on average it takes the staff manning the federal database set up for such checks 70 minutes to get to an inquiry and a mere 11 minutes to answer it. Judge Bolton declares that any delay amounts to exposing legal aliens to “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.”
This is a tautology dressed up with scare words. It’s impossible as a matter of definition to get arrested without experiencing “police surveillance.” As for “inquisitorial practices,” blogger William A. Jacobson notes that “states already routinely run searches for a variety of statuses, including outstanding warrants, child support orders and non-immigration identity checks. Each of these checks potentially could delay release of an innocent person.”
When states want to check on someone’s immigration status, they do it with the aforementioned federal database. As a matter of law, the outfit running it must respond to all inquiries “seeking to verify or ascertain citizenship or immigration status . . . for any purpose authorized by law.” In writing this sweeping requirement, Congress did not make an exception for requests emanating from Arizona.
Too bad, says Judge Bolton. If the state finds too many suspected illegal immigrants, it might overburden the system. Let’s put aside (as Judge Bolton does) that the system already gets 1 million inquiries a year, that it has a theoretical capacity to process 1.5 million and that, as of now, Arizona only makes 80,000 inquiries annually, meaning even a drastic increase could be accommodated. If the federal government fears a surge from Arizona, couldn’t it add some positions to the 153 staffers currently assigned to the database? Think of it as stimulus.
But never mind. With emotions running high over the Arizona law, some comic relief is always welcome. Judge Bolton has provided it.
— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review
The worst aspect of judicial activism is the arrogant belief that they can foretell all possible outcomes.
Invalidating a law because ‘of the burden it might place on law enforcement’ is madness. Should we repeal laws against rape, murder and robbery in case the police break a sweat?
I don’t see why the State of Arizona doesn’t sue the Federal government for failing to uphold there own law regarding illegals in Arizona.
_____________________________
Please help Texas watch her borders.
14 live cameras. Watch live and report to border patrol. Night cams in operation.
http://www.blueservo.net/
.
bump
I am not disposed to find political hacks in robes as funny. It must be my reptillian brain that says such people should be drag into the courtyard and hanged.
Basically, she invalidates the state law because it would cause the Feds to become too efficient at deporting illegal aliens. BooHoo! There would be so much extra work if all the state agencies suddenly got busy at clearing up this problem. Mass deportation might hurt somebody’s feelings!
This judge really screwed herself (along with AZ). She acknowledged all of AZ's points of law and then trumped them with an idiotic concern over police ineptitude. Hey judge, you let these guys carry guns and shoot at presumably bad guys. If they are so inept, shouldn't they also lose the weaponry? Her line of reasoning is as holey as Swiss cheese, but it smells like li[m]burger.
Hilarious? Some people have a sick sense of humor.
Brewer is considering just that.
We in Arizona are presuming that Susie Bolton has a law degree.
BA and JD from the University of Iowa.
What a disgrace...
RE: We in Arizona are presuming that Susie Bolton has a law degree.
From Wikipedia :
Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Bolton received a B.A. from the University of Iowa in 1973 and a J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1975.
She was a law clerk for Judge Laurance T. Wren of the Arizona Court of Appeals from 1975 to 1977. She was then in private practice in Phoenix, Arizona, from 1977 to 1989.
Bolton’s judicial service began on the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County, where she served from 1989 to 2000. On July 21, 2000, based upon the recommendation of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona, Bolton was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a District Court seat vacated by Robert C. Broomfield. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 3, 2000, and received her commission on October 13, 2000.
She is registered as a political independent.
Not all that funny. But I see no reason why the cops should be banned from asking for papers. Its what happens next that is the real issue. And if the feds are slow to respond then thsats obamas fault not arizonas.
Susan Bolton’s ruling speaks of the same attitude another woman had some 200+ years ago who said, “Let them eat cake!”.
Totally agree. This is along the same lines as this article.
It's much too much work.
The government is too busy making up fictitious ideas: cap n’ trade, “saving or creating” jobs, pretending there is racism at the TEA Parties and pretending there is none at the polls in PA.
It's ironic that they never worry about the burdens they put on the taxpayers.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.